Forum Topic

I can't help thinking this is an Ealing Council procurement problem, and therefore a regime problem. I.e. they've put the contract out to tender and chosen a contract award and start date without taking advice from the companies shortlisted what lead times they would need to make the capital investment in kerbside recycling vehicles in time for the start of the service. And /or the council has been slow on its feet making budget decisions (like they dont know roughly how much to budget for recycling collections by now!) and it's the service start stage that gets squeezed as a result.As such the company that wins hasn't acquired the correct trucks in time; and they / the council / we as tax payers are footing the bill for hiring the bright sparkly new looking old style trucks in use for just a few months. And, if you think that every 3rd or 4th council in the country is also changing up its refuse recycling supplier at the same time of year - there must be a refuse vehicle hire company (or two) making a serious amount of money meeting the demand for renting out these vehicles for just a few months a year.Second, it seems to me that the so called cost saving the council is making - and celebrating - is due to the reduced level of service being provided and introduction of additional charges. Ie 2 trucks each week instead of 3, and the garden waste collections now fortnightly and lower volume (at least for the moment) since the introduction of the extra annual charge. And I dont suppose they've off set the extra costs associated with fly-tipping and refuse collection centres receiving waste direct when calculating and publicising this saving.So it's a less efficient, reduced level of service than before, a higher financial and ecological cost (less recycling and more car trips to tips), provides for a more threatening dirty environment (flytipping waste I've seen), using equipment no longer geared to the work and very possibly fewer people being employed - which is just what the London economy needs right now.Sorry if I am overlapping on points raised elsewhere on this forum.

S Bradford ● 5223d

As an Ealing resident I would like to invite responses to some of the unanswered questions and comments raised on this thread and raise a few new ones:1) “It wasn't so long ago that certain areas within Ealing, including Acton and Southall I think, were each awarded a £20K bonus by the Council for percentage improvements achieved in recycling. I wonder if anyone can expand on this and tell us how this money was spent...?”2) “The council’s contractor has a plan to get a full fleet of 15 kerbsiders in operation by 11th June.” Was this date agreed at the time the contract was awarded or did it come about later / as a result of public outcry? Has this target been met?3) “Apparently Enterprise's contract gives them a penalty-free 3 months to get their act together.” Did this clause specifically cover the provision of kerbsiders? When was the council aware that kerbsiders would not be available for the start of the contract? (ie before or after the contract was awarded). Was this clause added by the contractor in the original contract as a result of late / short timings laid down by Ealing Council procurement team? Did the council discuss timings of the start of the service, and specifically the availability of kerbsiders, with all the shortlisted contractors? And did this inform the decision on which contractor to go with? 4) Is it the contractor, or the council, or both, that has borne cost of the interim vehicles, and interim recycling measures in Kent? And was this agreed before the contract was awarded or later?5) What provision (if any) did the council make for expenses associated with implementing and introducing changes in collection practices (i.e. cost of communications, PR, extra fly-tipping, extra enquiry handling, interim vehicles/recycling provision, etc.)? Were these costs taken into account in the publically announced saving figure of £3M? And, assuming provision was made, does the council expect to be within or over-budget in respect of this? 6) Were the costs/timings for maintaining / transferring / introducing the collections database to the new contractor taken account of at the outset? Were these met or did they over-run? Else are these on track to be met? 7) Were the costs/timings for updating the council’s website taken account of at the outset? Were these met or did they over-run? Else are these on track to be met? 8)“The council could maybe have done more to establish that the company could meet its promises from the start, but we seem to be stuck with a race to the bottom in provision of these services.” Can the council give more information on this? In particular clarify what is meant by “stuck with a race to the bottom in provision of these services.”9) Can the council give assurances that lessons are being learned viz agreeing contract implementation timings and clauses, and that this will lead to improved procurement, legal and communications processes, in particular in respect of key contracts at the council?10) Are any aspects of this “fiasco” being referred to the council’s auditors?Brief, clear, factual answers would be good. Apologies if any of these questions have been answered elsewhere on this forum.

S Bradford ● 5207d

A response from Bassam after being asked the question by a friend of mine as to whether Enterprise would be fined, or indeed have their contract terminated.  At least it's good to know the council are going to fine them (we hope, or maybe this is just waffle) but personally I think they should be sacked and the contract given to the next best bid.  They've had their chance and screwed it up.Thank you for your e-mail.I appreciate how frustrated you and neighbours will be with the new contractor's inability to deliver on the promises they have made as part of signing up to this contract and the promises they have made subsequently in terms of getting back on track.In addition to all of the monitoring and direct support we are providing to them to get their act together, the detailed monitoring we have carried out has put us in a position where we can quite accurately assign what level of fine we should levy against them for their non-performance.  Clearly, everyone would far prefer that they simply delivered on what they signed up for rather than have to do a lot of work to fine them and trying to get them to correct everything they don't do correctly, but we are prepared to and are indeed looking to fine them as you have suggested.Also, we are prepared to do whatever it takes to get this service back up to scracth and meet the expectations that we as residents and the council have come to expect.Yours sincerely,Bassam Mahfouz--Cllr Bassam MahfouzLabour Councillor for Northolt West EndEaling Cabinet member for Environment & Transporttwitter.com/BassamMahfouzwww.bassammahfouz.comEaling Council - Winner of London Transport Award 2012 for Best Transport Borough

Sarah Harris ● 5144d